Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd
[Citation -2020-LL-0918-26]

Citation 2020-LL-0918-26
Appellant Name Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai
Respondent Name Macro Marvel Projects Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 18/09/2020
Assessment Year 2005-06
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags monetary limit • low tax effect


Judgt. dt. 18.9.2020 in T.C.A.625/2016 PCIT-4 v. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. 1/5 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.9.2020 CORAM HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Tax Case (Appeal) No.625 of 2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai. Appellant Vs. M/s.Macro Marvel Projects Ltd., 813, Glenden Place, Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. PAN: AAC CM 8816 D Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 20.1.2016 made in ITA No.2092/Mds/2015. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Ms.Sumitha for Mr.R.Sivaraman JUDGMENT (Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by Revenue, calling in question correctness of order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 20.1.2016 made in ITA No.2092/Mds/2015, for Assessment Year 2005-2006, by raising http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 18.9.2020 in T.C.A.625/2016 PCIT-4 v. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. 2/5 following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on facts and circumstances of case, ITAT was right in law in deleting disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia) in year under consideration as statutory provisions are amply clear and in context of section 40(a)(ia) of Act, term payable would include amounts which are paid during previous year? (ii) Whether on facts and circumstances of case, ITAT was right in law in holding that provision of section u/s.40(a)(ia) of Act cover only amounts which are payable as on 31st March of previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration and not amounts which are payable at any time during relevant previous year? (iii) Whether on facts and circumstances of case and in law, ITAT erred in not appreciating and ignoring ratio of decision in case of Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit v. CIT (2016) 67 taxmann.com 283 (Karnataka) wherein it is held that section 40(a)(ia) cannot be interpreted to mean that it http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 18.9.2020 in T.C.A.625/2016 PCIT-4 v. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. 3/5 applies only to amounts payable and not to those which have been paid ? (iv) Whether on facts and circumstances of case and in law, ITAT was correct in not appreciating and ignoring ratio of decision in case of CIT vs. M/s.Crescent Export Syndicate 216 Taxman 258(Cal) and CIT vs. Sekander Khan N Tunvar 33 Taxmann.com 133 (Gujarat) which constitutes ratio decidendi on issue as discussed in order dated 02.08.2013 of Mumbai ITAT in case of ACIT, Cir.4(2) Mumbai vs. Rishti Stock & Shares (P) Ltd - ITA No.112/Mum/2012 and further whether order of ITAT had turned perverse in view of ratio of decision in case of Sudarshan Silk Sarees vs. CIT 306 ITR 205 (SC)? 2. When matter is taken up for hearing, learned Senior Standing Counsel brought to our notice Circular instruction issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by Department before High Court in cases where tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 18.9.2020 in T.C.A.625/2016 PCIT-4 v. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. 4/5 3. In instant case, tax effect is said to be less than monetary limit imposed and therefore, Appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed, as withdrawn, keeping open substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs. (V.K.,J.) (K.R.,J.) 18.9.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ssk. To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai. 2. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai. 3. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle IV(1), Chennai. 4. M/s.Macro Marvel Projects Ltd., 813, Glenden Place, Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 18.9.2020 in T.C.A.625/2016 PCIT-4 v. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. 5/5 DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. and KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. ssk. T.C.(A) No.625 of 2016 18.9.2020. http://www.judis.nic.in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd
Report Error